Troops Tea Party seems upset

[Jamisjockey]

If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.
And the losers are often tried and convicted and executed in history. 

[Tallpine]

If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.

Yeah, you can't get paid if you're dead.

[Boomhauer]

If we trade nukes with Russia, we've got bigger problems.

Like there's not going to be much of anybody on either side left to put on trial once the dust settles if a nuclear war happens like it's planned too.

[Fitz]

Accept ALL MY HYPOTHETICALS

What if, by striking syria, we activate a homing beacon implanted by the reptilian aliens.

Then, that beacon malfunctions, sending a signal back that the aliens interpret as an order to invade.

MASSIVE global war with aliens, possibly with pulse rifles. the world units and mounts a counter insurgency, but it's ineffective. We try to nuke their ships to no avail.

Then, at the last minute, we come across an ancient vault

We open the door

get on the floor


everybody walk that dinosaur.

[charby]

Read the scenario, and accept all of its realities.

US armed forces delivering nuclear payloads to enemy sites designated by the CinC.

The US loses.

The victor holding Nuremberg style trials over US servicemen, from sergeants to generals, involved in everything the victor perceives as a war crime.  Mosques were hit by nukes, it was an affront to Allah, proletariat strike on the bourgeoisie, take your pick.

Yes, it's highly possible that if the US loses a war with some power later on in the cycle of history, that that power will have a vastly different moral compass.

The Germans felt that following orders was a suitable defense for their actions.  History doesn't show that.

And keep in mind, that massive global-scale wars have a tendency to rewrite the rules after the fact.


(Anyways, I just spent two hours rallying in front of Flake and McCain's offices in PHX, protesting any use of force in Syria.  Not that it'll do any good. )

What ever late night talk show radio host you listen to or whatever back page obscure internet news articles you read, I'd suggest you quit them and find something a tad bit more mainstream.

Also do you ever reread what you post? Many times there is so much incoherent armchair warrior babbling. US to drop Nukes? Seriously?

[Fitz]

What ever late night talk show radio host you listen to or whatever back page obscure internet news articles you read, I'd suggest you quit them and find something a tad bit more mainstream.

Also do you ever reread what you post? Many times there is so much incoherent armchair warrior babbling. US to drop Nukes? Seriously?

Nah brah.

See, if the military just refuses any orders that may have negative consequences, we're good, see?


BRB... telling all my soldiers to refuse to go to A-stan because they might get captured and beheaded.

[RoadKingLarry]

. . . didn't Soviet Russia frequently send people to the gulag on charges that actually read something like "unwarranted exercise of constitutional rights?"

Sometimes seems we aren't too far from that here these days.

[Levant]

Intelligence gathering capabilities and the ability to spy on citizens was pretty minimal in 1787 yet protesters had the need to remain anonymous.  http://www.constitution.org/afp/centin01.htm

The Obama administration has proven that they will go after those who protest against them: http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/proof-that-obama-met-secretly-with-irs-to-target-perceived-opponents so those who actively protest have reason to hide.

But those on active duty know that they are not allowed to protest and for good reasons.  Losing a stripe or a month's pay for each of them might drive that point home.

On the other hand, ex-military have a long tradition of protesting while wearing their uniforms as a demonstration of their standing to protest.  Active duty - no.  Ex-military - OK.

[Boomhauer]

On the other hand, ex-military have a long tradition of protesting while wearing their uniforms as a demonstration of their standing to protest.  Active duty - no.  Ex-military - OK.

*Cough* John Kerry *cough*

Who is quick to condemn war...unless it's desired by the Chosen One...

[freakazoid]

Apparently, we want a military where people can ignore orders if those orders make them uncomfortable or might put them in danger

BRB... telling all my soldiers to refuse to go to A-stan because they might get captured and beheaded.

I'm pretty sure no body is suggesting they protest because they might get hurt or worse, more like protesting the orders that have you aiding and abetting of the enemy.

[AZRedhawk44]

Accept ALL MY HYPOTHETICALS

What if, by striking syria, we activate a homing beacon implanted by the reptilian aliens.

Then, that beacon malfunctions, sending a signal back that the aliens interpret as an order to invade.

MASSIVE global war with aliens, possibly with pulse rifles. the world units and mounts a counter insurgency, but it's ineffective. We try to nuke their ships to no avail.

Then, at the last minute, we come across an ancient vault

We open the door

get on the floor


everybody walk that dinosaur.

 


"Terrorism" is a nifty little label that gets to be applied to the loser in any war.

Siding with Al Qaeda and losing, brands the US as terrorists.

There's your war crime, in Bush era logic.  You're either with the terrorists, or with us.  Right?  But Russia gets to interpret the label of terrorist, rather than us.

Meh.  Whatever.  I ain't going, and I've let my bottomfeeder critters know I don't want them to so much as allow a sailor to spit in the general direction of Syria, let alone BotG, air strikes or anything else.

The likelihood of the US losing any war in the next 20 years is pretty dang small.

But the defense of "Congress said to do it" still rings hollow in my ears, if a soldier is somehow held accountable for actions that a foreign court doesn't like.  A failed assassination attempt on Assad, for example.  Or a bombing strike on a target that was supposed to be a military bunker but turns out to be just an ordinary mosque/madrasa, and the bomber gets shot down and the pilot captured.  Or deliberately bad intel from AQ "allies" makes us do something horrible, and we later have to answer for it.

[Fitz]

I'm pretty sure no body is suggesting they protest because they might get hurt or worse, more like protesting the orders that have you aiding and abetting of the enemy.

That's PRECISELY what AZR said. Go back and read.

[Fitz]

"Terrorism" is a nifty little label that gets to be applied to the loser in any war.

Siding with Al Qaeda and losing, brands the US as terrorists.

There's your war crime, in Bush era logic.  You're either with the terrorists, or with us.  Right?  But Russia gets to interpret the label of terrorist, rather than us.

Meh.  Whatever.  I ain't going, and I've let my bottomfeeder critters know I don't want them to so much as allow a sailor to spit in the general direction of Syria, let alone BotG, air strikes or anything else.

The likelihood of the US losing any war in the next 20 years is pretty dang small.

But the defense of "Congress said to do it" still rings hollow in my ears, if a soldier is somehow held accountable for actions that a foreign court doesn't like.  A failed assassination attempt on Assad, for example.  Or a bombing strike on a target that was supposed to be a military bunker but turns out to be just an ordinary mosque/madrasa, and the bomber gets shot down and the pilot captured.  Or deliberately bad intel from AQ "allies" makes us do something horrible, and we later have to answer for it.

You don't get what I'm saying.

If congress authorizes a war, the military has a duty to obey.

Without that duty, there's no point whatsoever in having a military. The military does not get to pick and choose which lawful engagements they participate in.

Everything you've described are possibilities. Some quite absurd. Doesn't change the fact that, as a soldier, you have the duty to obey orders that are in line with the constitution.

[AZRedhawk44]

That's PRECISELY what AZR said. Go back and read.

Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.

[Fitz]

Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.

I never said that Congress ordering war crimes was legit.

You posited that "war crimes" are determined by the victors. You posited that soldiers could be tried for war crimes if they lose.

How is this functionally different from a soldier getting captured by the taliban, tried for "crimes against islam" and beheaded?

Protip, it isn't.

Soldiers cannot avoid fighting in a conflict because their actions might have repercussions if the US loses. That's lunacy

[HankB]

The comparisons to the founders aren't valid. I'm not quite even sure how to respond. If you can't see the difference , I don't know what to tell you.

Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore. 

[Jamisjockey]

Not really.

I'm focused more on the moral clarity of the war's justification, in light of actions perceived as war crimes by the victor.  Not the safety of the soldier.  War is really dangerous.  Duh.

Nuremberg demonstrated that German soldiers accepted "my command structure told me to do it" was an appropriate response, but the US does not accept that as a defense in the event of war crimes.

Soldiers firing rifles and grenades and tanks and missiles at other opposing soldiers are not going to be put on trial.  Soldiers shooting everyone inside a madrasa that's supposed to be an NBC silo in disguise (due to bad intel), might be put on trial.

Fighter/bomber pilots carrying NBC ordnance, might.  Officers on sunken/captured Aegis Destroyers or missile subs, might.  SpecOps units that destroy controversial targets, might.

"Congress told me to do it" is no different than "mein fuhrer told me to do it."  It still passes the buck of accepting moral responsibility for the action being called a war crime.

 

[Fitz]

Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore. 

The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.

[charby]

The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.

+1000

[Balog]

AZRed: people in the .mil signed a contract. They are in violation of their contract. Why is a voluntaryist supporting people violating their contracts, not because they are being forced to do something morally wrong but because they want you to know that they don't want to do something morally wrong? You sure do have a low view of the sanctity of contracts for someone who wants to replace the .gov with voluntary contracts.

And all the "might be tried for war crimes" stuff is true. Any person on the losing side of a war can be tried for anything the victor feels like. I really don't see how that's cogent.

Translation: Undercuts my argument about only cowardly soldiers hiding their identities when protesting. Must ignore. 

The Founders were trying to start a rebellion and overthrow the existing .gov, which is a wee bit different than a bunch of folks who try to garner the legitimacy of wearing uniforms to protest in a way they have specifically agreed not to.

[AZRedhawk44]

AZRed: people in the .mil signed a contract. They are in violation of their contract. Why is a voluntaryist supporting people violating their contracts, not because they are being forced to do something morally wrong but because they want you to know that they don't want to do something morally wrong? You sure do have a low view of the sanctity of contracts for someone who wants to replace the .gov with voluntary contracts.

OK, you win.  At least for voluntary enlistees.  Draft hasn't been used in a long time, but I don't acknowledge the validity of that same argument for draftees.

[Boomhauer]

The "Troops Tea Party" people are no different than the idiots that whine about deploying, or desert before deployment and then defend their actions as "I didn't know I was going to have to go to war, I only signed up for college money!"

That don't work, hoss.

OK, you win.  At least for voluntary enlistees.  Draft hasn't been used in a long time, but I don't acknowledge the validity of that same argument for draftees.

And we aren't drafting people.

And do let me point out that back in WWII we sided with a very evil country that helped start WWII. A country that made the Muslim Brotherhood look like nothing.

Now should we involve ourselves in Syria? *expletive deleted*ck no.

[HankB]

The crux of it is: the soldiers agreed to follow lawful orders from the president. They hide their faces because they know that they are failing to fulfill their obligations. So far, there is nothing the government has done that hasn't been in line with the agreement they willingly entered into.

Correct - the operative phrase being so far.  POTUS at this point HAS NOT used the US military to support Al-Qaeda, as far as we know. (Though there is some question about which "rebel" groups in Syria we're aiding - and how.)

But when POTUS has indicated an intent to embark on a course of action that legal opinion seems to strongly suggest is not only illegal but unconstitutional, I hardly think persons who object are failing to fulfill their obligations.

If Congress ultimately approves attacking Syria, the legalities will have been satisfied, at least insofar as American law is concerned, which will change the dynamic of the debate, and the attack orders will be lawful; foolish, but lawful.

[lupinus]

It's simple really.

Attacking Syria would be monumentally stupid. Attacking Syria without congressional approval would also be completely illegal and I would fault no soldier who refused to do so.

But, attacking Syria if congress gives authorization would be perfectly legal, just stupid. The military makes folks do all manner of stupid things, and no one gets to say no just because the order is stupid.

It's a completely different and separate discussion from if we should in the first place.

[SADShooter]

Likely no decision/movement until next Tuesday, when we can evaluate the relative influence of scripted oratory against that of extemporaneous gasbaggery.